News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
News
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
While this could unlock unprecedented mobility abundance — cheaper rides, reduced congestion, freed-up urban space, and massive environmental gains — it risks massive job displacement in ride-hailing, taxi services, and related sectors, forcing society to confront whether the benefits of AI-driven autonomy will outweigh the human costs.
The first Tesla Cybercab rolled off of production lines at Gigafactory Texas yesterday, and it is more than just a simple manufacturing milestone for the company — it’s the opening salvo in a profound economic transformation.
Priced at under $30,000 with volume production slated for April, the steering-wheel-free, pedal-less Robotaxi-geared vehicle promises to make personal car ownership optional for many, slashing transportation costs to as little as $0.20 per mile through shared fleets and high utilization.
Credit: wudapig/Reddit< /a>
While this could unlock unprecedented mobility abundance — cheaper rides, reduced congestion, freed-up urban space, and massive environmental gains — it risks massive job displacement in ride-hailing, taxi services, and related sectors, forcing society to confront whether the benefits of AI-driven autonomy will outweigh the human costs.
Let’s examine the positives and negatives of what the Cybercab could mean for passenger transportation and vehicle ownership as we know it.
The Promise – A Radical Shift in Transportation Economics
Tesla has geared every portion of the Cybercab to be cheaper and more efficient. Even its design — a compact, two-seater, optimized for fleets and ride-sharing, the development of inductive charging, around 300 miles of range on a small battery, half the parts of the Model 3, and revolutionary “unboxed” manufacturing — is all geared toward rapid production.
Operating at a fraction of what today’s rideshare prices are, the Cybercab enables on-demand autonomy for a variety of people in a variety of situations.
Tesla ups Robotaxi fare price to another comical figure with service area expansion
It could also be the way people escape expensive and risky car ownership. Buying a vehicle requires expensive monthly commitments, including insurance and a payment if financed. It also immediately depreciates.
However, Cybercab could unlock potential profitability for owning a car by adding it to the Robotaxi network, enabling passive income. Cities could have parking lots repurposed into parks or housing, and emissions would drop as shared electric vehicles would outnumber gas cars (in time).
The first step of Tesla’s massive production efforts for the Cybercab could lead to millions of units annually, turning transportation into a utility like electricity — always available, cheap, and safe.
The Dark Side – Job Losses and Industry Upheaval
With Robotaxi and Cybercab, they present the same negatives as broadening AI — there’s a direct threat to the economy.
Uber, Lyft, and traditional taxis will rely on human drivers. Robotaxi will eliminate that labor cost, potentially displacing millions of jobs globally. In the U.S. alone, ride-hailing accounts for billions of miles of travel each year.
There are also potential ripple effects, as suppliers, mechanics, insurance adjusters, and even public transit could see reduced demand as shared autonomy grows. Past automation waves show job creation lags behind destruction, especially for lower-skilled workers.
Gig workers, like those who are seeking flexible income, face the brunt of this. Displaced drivers may struggle to retrain amid broader AI job shifts, as 2025 estimates bring between 50,000 and 300,000 layoffs tied to artificial intelligence.
It could also bring major changes to the overall competitive landscape. While Waymo and Uber have partnered, Tesla’s scale and lower costs could trigger a price war, squeezing incumbents and accelerating consolidation.
Balancing Act – Who Wins and Who Loses
There are two sides to this story, as there are with every other one.
The winners are consumers, Tesla investors, cities, and the environment. Consumers will see lower costs and safer mobility, while potentially alleviating themselves of awkward small talk in ride-sharing applications, a bigger complaint than one might think.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Cybercab pricing and consumer release date
Tesla investors will be obvious winners, as the launch of self-driving rideshare programs on the company’s behalf will likely swell the company’s valuation and increase its share price.
Cities will have less traffic and parking needs, giving more room for housing or retail needs. Meanwhile, the environment will benefit from fewer tailpipes and more efficient fleets.
A Call for Thoughtful Transition
The Cybercab’s production debut forces us to weigh innovation against equity.
If Tesla delivers on its timeline and autonomy proves reliable, it could herald an era of abundant, affordable mobility that redefines urban life. But without proactive policies — retraining, safety nets, phased deployment — this revolution risks widening inequality and leaving millions behind.
Elon on the MKBHD bet, stating “Yes” to the question of whether Tesla would sell a Cybercab for $30k or less to a customer before 2027 https://t.co/sfTwSDXLUN
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 17, 2026
The real question isn’t whether the Cybercab will disrupt — it’s already starting — it’s whether society is prepared for the economic earthquake it unleashes.
News
Tesla Model 3 wins Edmunds’ Best EV of 2026 award
The publication rated the Model 3 at an 8.1 out of 10, and with its most recent upgrades and changes, Edmunds says, “This is the best Model 3 yet.”
The Tesla Model 3 has won Edmunds‘ Top Rated Electric Car of 2026 award, beating out several other highly-rated and exceptional EV offerings from various manufacturers.
This is the second consecutive year the Model 3 beat out other cars like the Model Y, Audi A6 Sportback E-tron, and the BMW i5.
The car, which is Tesla’s second-best-selling vehicle behind the popular Model Y crossover, has been in the company’s lineup for nearly a decade. It offers essentially everything consumers could want from an EV, including range, a quality interior, performance, and Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite, which is one of the best in the world.
The Tesla Model 3 has won Edmunds Top EV of 2026:
“The Tesla Model 3 might be the best value electric car you can buy, combining an Edmunds Rating of 8.1 out of 10, a starting price of $43,880, and an Edmunds-tested range of 338 miles. This is the best Model 3 yet. It is… pic.twitter.com/ARFh24nnDX
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) February 18, 2026
The publication rated the Model 3 at an 8.1 out of 10, and with its most recent upgrades and changes, Edmunds says, “This is the best Model 3 yet.”
In its Top Rated EVs piece on its website, it said about the Model 3:
“The Tesla Model 3 might be the best value electric car you can buy, combining an Edmunds Rating of 8.1 out of 10, a starting price of $43,880, and an Edmunds-tested range of 338 miles. This is the best Model 3 yet. It is impressively well-rounded thanks to improved build quality, ride comfort, and a compelling combination of efficiency, performance, and value.”
Additionally, Jonathan Elfalan, Edmunds’ Director of Vehicle Testing, said:
“The Model 3 offers just about the perfect combination of everything — speed, range, comfort, space, tech, accessibility, and convenience. It’s a no-brainer if you want a sensible EV.”
The Model 3 is the perfect balance of performance and practicality. With the numerous advantages that an EV offers, the Model 3 also comes in at an affordable $36,990 for its Rear-Wheel Drive trim level.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk’s xAI celebrates nearly 3,000 headcount at Memphis site
The update came in a post from the xAI Memphis account on social media platform X.
xAI has announced that it now employs nearly 3,000 people in Memphis, marking more than two years of local presence in the city amid the company’s supercomputing efforts.
The update came in a post from the xAI Memphis account on social media platform X.
In a post on X, xAI’s Memphis branch stated it has been part of the community for over two years and now employs “almost 3,000 locally to help power Grok.” The post was accompanied by a photo of the xAI Memphis team posing for a rather fun selfie.
“xAI is proud to be a member of the Memphis community for over two years. We now employ almost 3,000 locally to help power @Grok. From electricians to engineers, cooks to construction — we’re grateful for everyone on our team!” the xAI Memphis’ official X account wrote.
xAI’s Memphis facilities are home to Grok’s foundational supercomputing infrastructure, including Colossus, a large-scale AI training cluster designed to support the company’s advanced models. The site, located in South Memphis, was announced in 2024 as the home of one of the world’s largest AI compute facilities.
The first phase of Colossus was built out in record time, reaching its initial 100,000 GPU operational status in just 122 days. Industry experts such as Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang noted that this was significantly faster than the typical 2-to-4-year timeline for similar projects.
xAI chose Memphis for its supercomputing operations because of the city’s central location, skilled workforce, and existing industrial infrastructure, as per the company’s statements about its commitment to the region. The initiative aims to create hundreds of permanent jobs, partner with local businesses, and contribute to economic and educational efforts across the area.
Colossus is intended to support a full training pipeline for Grok and future models, with xAI planning to scale the site to millions of GPUs.
Tesla Cybercab production begins: The end of car ownership as we know it?
Tesla Model 3 wins Edmunds’ Best EV of 2026 award
